I agree that you are not obligated to pay, as in you don't deserve to have debt for consuming things you value. I think it may be a rationalization to argue that you shouldn't try to. Although maybe there is a difference of opinion on separating an obligation from an ought to.

Justifying why it's okay to feel entitled to the content for free (due to lots of available free content) even though it provides a personal value to you is what oversteps in the wrong direction to me, if that's part of your take.

I should probably clarify that merely grabbing or holding your attention is not what I mean by providing value. I mean it saves you time, it gives you conversation topics, it helps you grow, its something you look forward to consuming, it isnt just taking attention you didnt know what to do with, etc. In kther words, there's something specific to the content that resonates with you.

Its possible you just don't value this content all that much, even if you do appreciate it and find it interesting - which is okay.

Value is very subjective and personal, there's no way to codify what I'm saying here.

And it's also fair to argue that you are paying for most of these things with your time and attention, although with your specific example an improvement was theorized that would give you the same value while saving you time, and that translated to paying the creator less. Something about the specifics there didn't seem right

And don't they make money from ads or subscriptions via YouTube or whatever platform they're on? I don't want to bother paying each creator, but I'm fine subscribing to YouTube or Pandora.

interesting. you can't afford to compensate all of the creators whose content you consume, so none of them shall receive compensation?

there is no obligation, it's just a good and kind thing to do.

I'm looking for the implication of the above that "none of them shall receive compensation" from me and not finding it.

fair, I did not assume positive intent